ANNOTATION KEY
✎ MY NOTE — personal reminders and in-the-moment cues
👁 MODELING NOTE — pedagogical rationale for observing colleagues
★ REVISION NOTE — explains what changed and why, per the three critique points
LESSON OVERVIEW
| PHASE | ACTIVITY | TIME | TTT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Warm-up | Survey as stimulus — silent reading + personal reflection | 5 min | 2 min |
| 2 — Vocabulary | Lexical sets — economic migration + community development language | 8 min | 4 min |
| 2b — Video OPTIONAL | Authentic video stimulus — noticing task + language mining | 7 min | 2 min |
| 3 — Interaction 1 | Pair discussion — Section A personal experience questions (now includes Interaction Toolkit ★C) | 9 min | 1 min |
| 4 — Language Clinic 1 | Open floor — grammar, vocabulary, and interaction questions | 5 min | 3 min |
| 5 — Interaction 2 | Perspective task — Stay vs. Leave argument cards (jigsaw) | 12 min | 2 min |
| 6 — Interaction 3 | Likert debate — whole-class statements (trim to 2–3 items if short on time) | 6 min | 2 min |
| 7 — Language Clinic 2 | Open floor — patterns noticed, gaps identified | 4 min | 2 min |
| 8 — Output + Wrap-up MOD ★B | Mini position statement (spoken or written) + one-word close | 9 min | 2 min |
| TOTAL (full version) · Trim Phase 6 to 2 items for 55-min version | 65 min | ~20 min | |
PHASE 1 — WARM-UP
5 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN
Procedure
- Distribute or display the Teach for Success Brain Drain Survey. Give participants 2 minutes to read silently — not to complete it, just to scan it and notice which questions feel most personal.
- Ask: "Which question hit closest to home? Did any question make you want to answer immediately — or made you hesitate?" (1 min think time; 1 min open share — take 2–3 brief responses with no commentary.)
- Frame the lesson: "Today the survey is our starting point. We're going to talk about one of the most important decisions your students face — and maybe one that shaped your own life. We'll also build the English vocabulary you need to have this conversation at a high level."
This is a difficult topic to talk about for some. In my experience with rural university educators, the question "should I stay or should I go?" is personal for almost everyone in the room — they either stayed, came back, or have a sibling or child who left. Some are struggling because they want to leave but only for the sake of their families. I use the survey as a starting point, and I let the students guide the discussion much from there. I keep an eye out for controversy or emotional challenges and try to steer the discussion in a sympathetic but positive way. The positive involves being encouraging to the teachers who are staying and doing some good and being sympathetic to those who are grappling with this challenge.
The warm-up follows the same structure as previous Teach for Success lessons: the survey is used as an activator, not a data instrument. By asking participants to read before they speak, the teacher lowers the entry threshold — everyone has something to look at, which prevents the awkward silence that can accompany cold topics and does not engage throught about emotional aspects of an issue.
PHASE 2 — VOCABULARY INPUT
8 MIN · TTT: ~4 MIN
Refer participants to Vocabulary Set 1 and Set 2 on the handout. This phase is now slightly shorter (8 min, down from 10) to create space for Phase 2b. Prioritise Sets 1 and 2 but move quickly — the video in Phase 2b will activate much of this vocabulary naturally.
Set 1 — Economic Migration & Development Vocabulary (8 items)
For each item: pronounce → one example sentence → invite a second example or synonym from participants. Do not lecture.
| WORD / PHRASE | MEANING IN CONTEXT | EXAMPLE |
|---|---|---|
| brain drain (n) | the emigration of educated or skilled workers from a region, leaving it less developed | "Ayacucho has experienced significant brain drain as graduates move to Lima." |
| urban migration (n) | the movement of people from rural to urban areas in search of better opportunities | "Urban migration has accelerated since the university opened in our province." |
| community investment (n) | the use of money, time, or skills to develop and improve a local community | "Young doctors who return home are a form of community investment." |
| entrepreneurship (n) | the activity of setting up new businesses, often while taking on financial risk | "Rural entrepreneurship can create jobs without requiring people to leave." |
| to retain (v) | to keep someone rather than losing them to another place | "How can rural provinces retain their most talented graduates?" |
| economic opportunity (n) | the chance to earn a living wage, advance professionally, or build wealth | "Students leave because economic opportunities in Lima are far greater." |
| remittances (n) | money sent home by workers living in another city or country | "Remittances from Lima help many rural families survive." |
| local talent pipeline (n) | a system that develops skilled people within a community and keeps them there | "Our university could become a local talent pipeline if salaries were competitive." |
Set 2 — Expressing Values, Tension, and Identity (9 items)
| WORD | MEANING | USE IN CONTEXT |
|---|---|---|
| torn (adj) | unable to choose between two things you value equally | "Many graduates feel torn between their career and their family obligations." |
| rooted (adj) | having a strong connection to a place, culture, or community | "I feel deeply rooted here — leaving would feel like losing part of myself." |
| obligated (adj) | feeling a strong duty or responsibility to do something | "Some students feel obligated to return and repay their community." |
| ambitious (adj) | having a strong desire to succeed, achieve, or do more | "Being ambitious isn't incompatible with staying." |
| resentful (adj) | feeling bitterness toward a situation that seems unfair | "Those who stayed can feel resentful watching peers advance in Lima." |
| pragmatic (adj) | dealing with problems in a practical, realistic way | "A pragmatic approach means looking at what salaries are actually available." |
| conflicted (adj) | experiencing two opposing feelings or values at the same time | "I felt genuinely conflicted when I got the job offer in Arequipa." |
| indebted (adj) | feeling that you owe something to a person or community | "Many scholarship recipients feel indebted to their home province." |
| underutilized (adj) | not being used to full potential or capacity | "Talented young people feel underutilized in areas with few professional opportunities." |
I always write brain drain, torn, and rooted on the board immediately — these three tend to unlock conversations that couldn't happen before. Don't over-dwell here: Phase 2b will activate much of this vocabulary better than any drill.
The Set 2 words are all gradable adjectives describing internal states — they move learners from reporting facts ("many people leave") to expressing personal experience ("I felt conflicted because…"). Without this register, discussion at B2–C1 stays at the surface.
PHASE 2b — VIDEO STIMULUS & NOTICING TASK NEW · CRITIQUE A: MULTIMODAL INPUT
7 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN
📱 PRIMARY CLIP — FACEBOOK REEL (SHORT, AUTHENTIC)
facebook.com/reel/1517899552904437
This is a short first-person video — the genre of testimonial reel common on Facebook and TikTok in Peru — in which a young person from a rural background speaks directly to camera about the stay-vs-leave decision. It provides exactly what text-based input cannot: authentic prosody, hedging, emotional register, and the kind of spontaneous self-disclosure that serves as a discourse model for learners.
- 1Before playing: "We're going to watch a short clip — about 60–90 seconds. Don't take notes. Just watch and listen. One question: what does this person feel?"
- 2Play the clip once without pause. Let participants absorb it as a whole.
- 3Quick whole-class check (30 sec): "One word — what does this person feel?" Take 3–4 responses. Write the words on the board. Note whether participants reach for Set 2 vocabulary unprompted.
- 4Play the clip a second time. This time ask participants to notice: "What arguments do you hear — for staying, or for leaving? And notice how they say it — do they sound certain, or uncertain?"
- 5Pair check (60 sec): "What did you notice? One argument, one language point." Brief open share. You are now ready to move to Phase 3.
⚠ FALLBACK NOTE: If the Facebook reel is unavailable (no internet, platform access restrictions), use one of these alternatives — all freely available on YouTube:
Option A: Search "Peru jóvenes migración Lima testimonio" on YouTube — numerous first-person short clips exist (2–4 min).
Option B: The YouTube clip "Brain Drain in Peru: Top Scientists Leaving Country" (Al Jazeera, ~3 min) works well with more academic groups.
Option C (no internet): The teacher reads a 200-word first-person monologue aloud — see the Read-Aloud Script on the handout (bottom of page 2). Same viewing task applies.
Option A: Search "Peru jóvenes migración Lima testimonio" on YouTube — numerous first-person short clips exist (2–4 min).
Option B: The YouTube clip "Brain Drain in Peru: Top Scientists Leaving Country" (Al Jazeera, ~3 min) works well with more academic groups.
Option C (no internet): The teacher reads a 200-word first-person monologue aloud — see the Read-Aloud Script on the handout (bottom of page 2). Same viewing task applies.
Language Mining — What Did They Say and How?
After the second viewing, the teacher briefly draws attention to how the speaker communicated — not just what they said. This is the "discourse model" function of authentic input.
| LIKELY SPEAKER FEATURE | WHAT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR LEARNERS |
|---|---|
| Hesitation / self-repair | "I mean… what I'm trying to say is…" — signals authentic thinking-in-real-time; models that hesitation is not failure |
| Hedging | "I kind of feel like…" / "I guess…" / "It's complicated" — shows how native or fluent speakers signal uncertainty without being vague |
| Loaded vocabulary | Note any words from Set 2 that the speaker uses (or near-equivalents in Spanish, if the clip is bilingual) — this validates the vocabulary input |
| Pragmatic stance | Does the speaker defend their choice or apologise for it? — a rich point for Phase 3 discussion |
I play the clip twice without pause and resist the urge to narrate over it. The second time, I watch participants' faces rather than the screen — the moment someone says "that's exactly how I felt" is worth more than any comprehension question. If the reel is unavailable, the read-aloud works surprisingly well. The shift in modality — the teacher as voice rather than slide presenter — also models a kind of performative language use.
The two-viewing structure mirrors listening pedagogy best practice: first for gist and affect, second for specific content and form. Asking "what do you notice about how they say it?" directly addresses Critique A's point about pragmatics and interaction models. The clip functions as pre-task input that seeds both the content and the register of everything that follows.
Why this phase was added (Critique A): The original lesson relied entirely on text-based, teacher-mediated input. This phase provides authentic spoken discourse — a real person, unscripted, navigating the same decision the participants face — which supports comprehension (the content is now embodied, not abstract), provides a pragmatic model (how do fluent speakers hedge, repair, and negotiate stance?), and creates an emotional bridging moment that makes the pair discussion in Phase 3 feel immediately personal rather than academic.
PHASE 3 — INTERACTION 1: PAIR DISCUSSION
9 MIN · TTT: ~1 MIN
🗣 INTERACTION TOOLKIT — DISPLAY BEFORE PAIRS BEGIN NEW · CRITIQUE C: INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCE
Before releasing pairs, spend 60–90 seconds pointing to this toolkit on the board or handout. Model two phrases aloud yourself — one from each column. You are not teaching these; you are making them visible and usable.
ENTERING / TURN-TAKING
- "Can I jump in here?"
- "Sorry to interrupt, but…"
- "Building on what you said…"
- "That actually reminds me…"
SOFTENING DISAGREEMENT
- "I see your point, but…"
- "I'm not sure I agree — for me…"
- "That may be true, although…"
- "I'd push back on that a little…"
CHECKING & REPAIR
- "Do you mean that…?"
- "Sorry — are you saying…?"
- "What I mean is…"
- "Let me rephrase that…"
Quick teacher model (30 sec): Point to the second column and say, aloud and naturally: "Watch how I'd use this if my partner said 'young people should always stay.' I'd say: 'I see your point — community matters. But I'm not sure I agree that it's always the right choice. For me it depends on what the person actually needs.'" Then release to pairs. No further explanation needed.
Procedure
- Put participants in pairs, ideally mixed by age or years at the institution. Refer them to Section A on the handout.
- They choose two questions to discuss for 7 minutes. Circulate and listen only — note language for the clinic, including interaction patterns (are they using toolkit moves?). Do not join, correct, or comment.
- Bring the class together. One sentence from one pair. Move immediately to the Language Clinic.
Section A Questions (on handout)
- Did you face a choice between staying in your hometown and moving to a larger city? What factors most influenced your decision — or what factors would influence it if you had to choose now?
- Think of a former student who left the region. Think of one who stayed. Who do you think made the better choice? Is it fair to compare them?
- Is there a difference between leaving for economic reasons and leaving for personal ambitions? Does the reason change how you feel about it?
- What would need to change in your province for a talented twenty-five-year-old to choose to stay — not out of obligation, but because it genuinely seemed like the best option?
"Choose any two. You don't have to agree. Use the interaction toolkit on your handout if it helps — especially if you want to disagree with your partner. You have 7 minutes."
Question 2 is the one I find most reliably generates animated discussion with teacher groups. I also now explicitly ask participants to try at least one phrase from the toolkit during the discussion — not because I'll check, but because naming the goal makes it more likely they'll attempt it.
The toolkit is displayed, briefly modelled, and then left visible — it is not drilled or tested. This is consistent with the research principle that interactional competence develops through exposure to models and opportunity for use, not through metalinguistic instruction. The teacher's 30-second demonstration is critical: it shows the moves in context, not as a list.
Why this was added (Critique C): The original lesson assumed that providing discussion questions was sufficient for rich interaction. Research on interactional competence (Pekarek Doehler & Pocorny, 2019; Walsh, 2011) shows that learners need explicit orientation to turn-taking, repair, and stance negotiation — not as grammar rules but as conversational tools. The toolkit gives participants the language to manage the interaction itself, not just contribute content to it.
PHASE 4 — LANGUAGE CLINIC 1
5 MIN · TTT: ~3 MIN
Procedure
- Open: "Any grammar or vocabulary questions from your pair discussion? Anything you wanted to say but couldn't find the English for?"
- Add: "Did anyone use a phrase from the interaction toolkit? Did it feel natural or awkward?" — treat this as genuine feedback, not evaluation.
- Share 1–2 language patterns you noticed while circulating. No names. Rephrase into a target form and write on the board.
- Ask participants to produce a second example sentence using the target form.
Anticipated Language Needs
| LIKELY LEARNER FORM | TARGET FORM |
|---|---|
| "He decided to go because he wanted earn more money." | "He left in order to / so that he could earn a better wage." |
| "Many peoples go to Lima." | "A significant proportion of graduates migrate to Lima." |
| "I don't think it's good that young people leave." | "I'm skeptical that this trend benefits the region in the long term." |
| "She came back because she felt she must." | "She returned because she felt obligated / indebted to her community." |
| "But — but — I want to say something." (interruption) | "Can I jump in here? / Building on what you said…" |
Note the last row — drawn from the toolkit, now treated as target language for repair, not just a social nicety.
Adding a toolkit-sourced example to the clinic treats interactional language as legitimate grammar — which it is. "Can I jump in?" is as rule-governed as any verb tense, and learners benefit from seeing it treated as such.
PHASE 5 — INTERACTION 2: PERSPECTIVE TASK (JIGSAW)
12 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN
Setup — Argument Groups
Divide into two groups. Group A receives the Case for Staying panel on the handout. Group B receives the Case for Leaving panel. Give groups 3 minutes to read and identify the 3 strongest arguments on their card.
Note: assign groups strategically — if you know who has personally left and returned, consider putting them in the opposing group for maximum productive tension.
Expert Pairs — Structured Argument Exchange
Reform into A-B pairs. Each person advocates for their assigned position for 4 minutes, then drops the role: "Now, what do you actually think?" (2 min)
"For the first four minutes: argue the position on your card as strongly as you can, even if it's not your own view. Use the toolkit to interrupt and push back. Then we'll drop the roles."
GROUP A — THE CASE FOR STAYING
- Rural communities lose their best talent just when they need it most
- Universities, schools, and clinics in rural areas desperately need qualified staff
- Lima is already overcrowded; internal migration creates urban poverty, not just rural poverty
- Entrepreneurship and remote work now make it possible to build a career without leaving
- Social capital — family networks, trust, community relationships — is worth more than a higher salary
- Who will teach the next generation if all the teachers leave?
- Cultural identity and ancestral knowledge are lost when educated youth become urban
GROUP B — THE CASE FOR LEAVING
- Professional development, specialist training, and career advancement rarely exist in rural areas
- Salaries in Lima can be 3–4× higher for the same work
- Young people have the right to pursue the best opportunities available, regardless of geography
- Migrants send remittances home — often more economic impact than staying on a low local salary
- Exposure to urban life, education systems, and networks creates leaders who can later return with more
- Staying in a limited environment can produce frustration, resentment, and underperformance
- The brain drain problem is the government's responsibility to fix, not the individual's burden to carry
The role-play element is what makes Phase 5 work. When I say "you are now arguing the position on your card as if your life depends on it," something shifts. The forced advocacy reveals arguments people know but don't usually say out loud. The "drop the role" moment is often the most honest conversation of the lesson.
Assigning positions protects participants from social pressure: if your position was assigned, you are not personally judged for it. This is especially valuable on emotionally loaded topics.
PHASE 6 — INTERACTION 3: LIKERT DEBATE
6 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN (trim to 2 statements if needed)
Procedure — Opinion Continuum
- Read a statement from Section C. Participants show position on a 1–5 scale (fingers, paper, or physical position in the room).
- Call on one person from each extreme: "One sentence — why did you choose that number?" Open briefly to the floor.
- Repeat with 2–3 statements. Move quickly — this is temperature-taking, not debate. If short on time, use Statements 1 and 6 only.
Section C Statements (select 2–4)
- "Young people who leave their rural community to work in Lima are, in some sense, abandoning the people who need them most."
- "It is the government's responsibility, not the individual's, to make rural areas attractive enough to retain talent."
- "Universities in rural regions should focus more on preparing students to build businesses locally than to compete for jobs in national corporations."
- "A person who studied with a scholarship from a rural province has a moral obligation to return and contribute to that community."
- "Brain drain is actually good for rural communities in the long run, because migrants return with more skills, capital, and ambition than they left with."
- "Teachers and professors who stay in rural areas are making a greater social contribution than those who pursue more prestigious careers in cities."
Statement 6 is the one I save for last — these participants are the ones who stayed. Asking them to rate whether they believe they made a greater social contribution than those who left always produces the most honest responses of the lesson.
Statements 1 and 4 use morally loaded language ("abandoning," "moral obligation") deliberately. At B2–C1, learners need practice recognizing and responding to loaded language — agreeing, disagreeing, softening, or strengthening it.
PHASE 7 — LANGUAGE CLINIC 2
4 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN
Procedure
- Ask: "Did you find any words from Set 2 that you ended up using? Which ones felt natural? Which felt forced?"
- Ask: "Was there anything you wanted to say in the debate — a nuance, a qualification — that you couldn't express in English?"
- Address 1–2 items. Write any new target forms on the board. Close quickly.
The second Language Clinic is explicitly meta-linguistic — it asks learners to reflect on their own language use, not just produce language. Asking "which words felt natural?" validates the vocabulary input: some words will feel immediately usable, others will take time.
PHASE 8 — OUTPUT TASK + WRAP-UP REVISED · CRITIQUE B: EXTENDED PRODUCTION
9 MIN · TTT: ~2 MIN
✍ MINI POSITION STATEMENT — 90-SECOND TASK
CHOOSE ONE FORMAT
Participants now produce a short, sustained position statement — moving from the fluency of pair discussion toward greater accuracy and complexity. Give 3 minutes to prepare, then 90 seconds each to deliver.
Language scaffold for the board:
"My position is that… · The main reason is… · I recognise that… but I still think… · The video we watched [or: the argument that moved me most] was… · Ultimately, I believe…"
One-Word Close (preserved from original)
- After the output task, close with:
"One word from today's vocabulary that you'll think about after you leave — just say it aloud. No explanation needed."
- Go around the room once. No comments. Let each word stand alone.
- Distribute or display the handout. Invite participants to complete the survey if they haven't already.
The output task changes the lesson's ending register. The one-word close still happens — I've kept it because it's the most emotionally precise moment in the lesson — but it now follows a moment of genuine sustained production. The 3-minute preparation window before speaking or writing is important: participants are not improvising; they are consolidating. What I notice is that the vocabulary from Set 2 appears far more reliably in the output task than in any of the discussions.
The three-format option (spoken / written / recorded) is not mere flexibility — each has distinct pedagogical properties. Spoken output with an audience creates real communicative pressure and rehearses academic presentation. Written output forces syntactic complexity that spontaneous speech rarely requires. Recorded output enables task repetition, which research consistently shows accelerates both fluency and accuracy. For this group — educators who value evidence-based practice — naming these differences explicitly can itself become a productive meta-discussion.
Why Phase 8 was restructured (Critique B): The original wrap-up was a one-word close — elegant but insufficiently productive. The critique correctly identifies that discussion-based lessons often end without sustained output, which means fluency develops but complexity and accuracy do not. The mini position statement creates a production cycle (input → discussion → output) that recycles vocabulary and arguments from the entire lesson into a single, more demanding communicative act. The scaffold on the board reduces anxiety without removing the cognitive challenge.